ETAWAH REGION, ETAWAH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent-workman was working as a Fitter in the Hardoi Depot of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and was chargesheeted on 10 counts. The workman denied the charges. An inquiry report was submitted holding that charge no.1 and 4 could not be proved but the remaining charges stood proved. On the basis of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 19th September, 2003. The workman, being aggrieved, raised an industrial dispute, which was referred for adjudication by an order dated 25th January, 2006. The Labour Court by an award dated 12th September, 2008, which was published on 16th April, 2009, has allowed the claim of the workman and has quashed the order of termination and further, directed the employer to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and will full back wages. The employers, being aggrieved, by the said order has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) HEARD Sri Lallan Verma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shitla Sahai, the learned counsel for the respondent-workman.

(3.) ON merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Labour Court, without considering the material evidence on record, has illegally held that charge nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 10 could not be proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner stressed that no reasons has been specified by the Labour Court while holding that the aforesaid charges could not be proved.